About your Search

20121222
20121230
STATION
CSPAN 6
MSNBCW 3
CSPAN2 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
CNBC 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
WETA 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
taxes. if the goal is to reduce the deficit, their goal of cutting taxes is not relevant to that goal so there's no overlap of potential agreement here. that's why there's no deal. >> let's take a listen to a very conservative retiring senator said, soon to be former senator joe lieberman, who is respected and seen as a deal maker. what we need right now is a deal. let's take a listen to something he just said. >> if we allow that to happen, it will be the most colossal, consequential act of congressional irresponsibility in a long time, maybe ever in american history. >> joy, i think what he's saying there and going over the cliff is not that this would be the worst thing congress has done on an objective scale, but the notion of doing something so bad for no reason is pretty frustrating, isn't it? >> i disagree with his characterization it would be the most irresponsible thing. i think messing around with not raising the debt ceiling and risking the default on the american debt was probably the most irresponsible thing we've seen this congress do, but the thing we need to remember, thi
, the thing we're trying to avoid, the actual danger to the economy, is that we will get too much deficit reduction too quickly. if reducing the deficit was what the economy needed we could go right off the cliff and leave it there. you can see it in this graph, that line going down. that is the fiscal cliff, we went over our deficit problems, gone baby, totally, totally gone. one thing the fear of the fiscal cliff shows by the way, in the fox hole, everyone's a kinsian. everyone agrees. that is number one. too much austerity way too quickly. president obama is not asking for that much in taxes. it's worth getting a bit of perspective in here. you'll be shocked to know, we got a graph for that. here's what happens if we go over the cliff. you get more than $5 trillion in tax increases off the bat. and now here's what happens if we pass the sainted simpson bowles plan. you've heard of the plan. they have 2.6 trillion in tax increases. president obama's latest offer to john boehner has 1.2 trillion in taxes. that is half as much, less than half than simpson bowles, and less than a quarter o
, we still have this bigger challenge out there of how are we going to fix the deficit and debt problem in this country? we know we have to make hard choices. we know the parties have to work together, and they've got to get to work on this as quickly as possible. >> maya, with the greatest of respect, it seems to me your logic is all over the place. it's very clear the nub of the discussion, the squealing that we have at the moment is whether or not to extend tax cuts. that is, in effect, saying we are going to balloon the deficit further. this is not a conversation about actually fixing the debt, is it? that's not what we're talking about at the moment. we're squealing over, let's keep the deficit big. you seem to be arguing that that's exactly what we should be doing. >> let me explain, because it is more complicated than often things are discussed in washington. the problem with the fiscal cliff is it would put in place deficit reduction, but it would put in deficit reduction too much, too quickly, and with the wrong parts of the budget. so it would let all of the tax cuts expire, i
to forge an agreement that would grow our economy and shrink the deficit, a balanced plan that would cut spending in a responsible way but also ask wealthy americans to pay more and protect our middle-class and everyone striving to get into the middle class. i want to get this done. it is the right thing to do for our families, businesses, and our economy, but the hour for immediate action is here. it is now. we are at the point where in four days every american's tax rates are scheduled to go up by law. every americans' paychecks will get considerably smaller. that would be the wrong thing to do for our economy, it would be bad for middle-class families, and it would be bad for businesses that depend on family spending. congress can prevent it if they act right now. i just had a good and constructive discussion here at the white house with leadership about how to prevent the tax hike on the middle class. i am optimistic we may reach an agreement that can pass both houses in time. senators reid and mcconnell are working on such an agreement as we speak, but if an agreement is not reached
and services among consumers, they are chronically bad at creating a surplus between deficit regions. remember -- if that comes first, suddenly the money lender who later becomes a banker who later becomes wall street plays a hugely significant role in this process. the banker is the conduct of that -- conduit of that recycling mechanism. when they get an increase in proportion as the result of their mediation of that process. the banker is the same thing as a clothes maker. suddenly, there are two things that must have been. 1 -- society will demand that banks are not allowed to go to the wall. then bankers are affectively blanche, free money for themselves. and the whole mechanism breaks down in 2008. in the eurozone, we made a huge error in europe of binding together these economies. this is not the first time these things that happened. it happened in the united states of america. you have disparate economies in the united states of america that are bound together monetarily. what is it that keeps the united states together? you had a great expression in the 1930 -- you had a great depress
their deficit and we cannot, the world will switch to euros. there is a tweet here -- guest: the cbo is supposed to be a political, but it cannot be too alarmist. if we go over the cliff, we are looking on january 1, some of this is already milton. about $600 million -- $650 billion in spending cuts and tax increases. that is about 4% of gdp. that is an enormous negative stimulus. a detraction from demand. that would surely be a deep recession. the cbo relies on simulation models that did not take into consideration investor sentiment, the reaction of consumers, and so forth that they wholly lose confidence in their government. if we go over the cliff and stay there, people will start to conclude that washington cannot manage its affairs. all bets are off on economic modeling. it is impossible to say what happened that other than it would be very negative. host: one piece that you actually did right has this headline -- take the idea of a recession next year. with the perspective of everything else going on, when a recession look like? guest: it depends on how we get there. if we have a fiscal c
insurance is still available for 2 million people, and that lays the groundwork then for additional deficit reduction and economic growth steps that we can take in the new year. >> all of this still developing. and we will have more on all of it with mark shields and david brooks later in the program. >> also ahead >> warner: also ahead, between now and then; protesting a gang rape in india; mass producing high quality education and remembering general norman schwarzkopf. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman. >> holman: the u.s. economy has dodged a potentially crippling strike at ports up and down the east coast and gulf coast at least, for now. the longshoremen's union agreed today to extend its existing contract by another month. that word came after the union and shipping lines worked out a deal on royalty payments for unloading containers. the contract extension gives the two sides time to resolve their remaining issues. wall street finished the week with its fifth straight losing session. stocks have been falling as concern mounts that washington will fail to get
insurance is still available for 2 million people and that lays the groundwork then for additional deficit reduction and economic growth steps that we can take in the new year. >> all of this still developing. and we will have more on all of it with mark shields and david brooks later in the program. >> also ahead >> warner: also ahead, between now and then; protesting a gang rape in india; mass producing high quality education and remembering general norman schwarzkopf. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman. >> holman: the u.s. economy has dodged a potentially crippling strike at ports up and down the east coast and gulf coast at least, for now. the longshoremen's union agreed today to extend its existing contract by another month. that word came after the union and shipping lines worked out a deal on royalty payments for unloading containers. the contract extension gives the two sides time to resolve their remaining issues. wall street finished the week with its fifth straight losing session. stocks have been falling as concern mounts that washington will fail to get
and deficit reduction. that is an achievable goal. >> today's meeting is the first with the president since november 16. sign for republicans that mr. obama has not really been pushing that hard for a deal. >> we need presidential leadership on in the just taxing rich people. >> three words the president did not use. he did not use the word sequester and he didn't say "debt ceiling" either. he focused most of his remarx on preventing taxes from going up. there are also massive spending cuts coming. no idea how they will avert that. he also did not mention the debt ceiling. earlier they wanted lifting the debt ceiling included. now it's clear it's not in the short-term package that guarantees if they get a short-term deal here, we have major budget battles coming. >> the key to any good negotiation each side has to give up something. near and dear to their heart. what is it, as succinctly as you imagine, both sides have given up? >> both sides say the president started on threshold of tax cut of $250,000. negotiations with boehner he moved to $400,000. not if you have for boehner. he wanted
, who are providing us also with the means to float the deficit. these are the people providing a lot of our financing. well, at some point if this goes on long enough, they begin to think, hold it. >> who's writing a lot of our financing? >> mainly foreign governments as well as markets. holding on to treasuries and the rest. so the question, then, at some point do they go, hold it. if these guys aren't serious, why am i depending upon them so much? and the scariest single scenario is ultimately people start saying before i continue to float the united states, i want to get a slightly higher return to take -- in order to -- because of this risk. because of this uncertainty. that is the day the spiral begins because that's the day mr. bernanke and his colleagues have to think about raising rates in order to attract the necessary financing. we don't want to get there. and what's so scary about this twofer of the cliff and the debt ceiling over the next two months, basically till the end of february, is for the rest of the world looking at us, we essentially have -- it's not so much nex
security came from a sound economy. he was a deficit hawk. he controlled government spending and package. his famous speech warning against military-industrial complex came at the end of his presidency but, in fact, he been working on it all a long. mostly behind the scenes. heaven help us, he liked to say, that we'll get a president who knows less about the military than i do. this approach to the military was not just about the economy. in the berlin crisis in 58-59 and in early crisis with korea and vietnam in 1953, 54, the almost straight, the suez crisis in 1956, eisenhower was playing a bigger game for higher stakes. a west point cadet and a young army officer, ike had been a great poker player. indeed, he was so good that he had to give it up. he was taking too much money from his fellow officers and it was hurting his career. he switched to bridge, but he never forgot how to block it with the soviets he bluffed with nuclear weapons. as only a real warrior can, ike hated war. seriously, the great war hero had never been in combat. in world war i had been stateside training troops
real national security was from a sound economy. he was a deficit hawk, boy, we could use him today, who controlled government spending and taxes. the famous speech warning against the industrial complex was at the end of the presidency, but worked on it all along behind the scenes. heaven help us he liked to say when we get a president who knows less about the military than i do. it was not about the economy or saving money. in the berlin crisis and earlier crisis with korea and vietnam in 1953 over the strait in 1954-55 and 1958 in the suez crisis in 1956, he was planning a bigger gain for higher stakes. west point cadet and young army officer, ike was a great poker player, and, indeed, so good, he had to give it up. he was taking too much money from the fellow officers hurting his career. he switched to bridge, but he never forgot how to bluff. the soviets, he bluffed with nuclear weapons. as only a real warrior can, ike hated war. curiously, the great war hero was never in combat. in world war i, he was training troops to his great chagrin, and world war ii, he was too valuable
the special mission had to rely on a militia, with skill deficits. overall, the board found the security systems and procedures were implemented properly by american personnel. ecosystem's themselves and the libyan response fell short on the night of the attacks -- those systems themselves and the libyan response fell short on the night of the attacks. their decision to depart the special mission without ambassador stevens kim after repeated efforts of many u.s. security agents -- came after manytepeated efforts of u.s. security agents. benghazi, tripoli and washington coordinated effectively with each other on the night of the attacks. the interagency response was timely and appropriate. but there was not enough time for u.s. military forces to have made a difference. having said that, it is not reasonable nor feasible to tether u.s. forces at the ready to respond to protect every high risk post in the world. we have found that there was no immediate tactical warning of the september 11 attacks. if there was a knowledge gap in the intelligence community's en understanding of extremist m
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)